Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed. (*)(*)

14. No SMS or Social Media Content (including Reddit)

This includes direct linking to reddit threads, reddit comments, other subreddits, facebook profiles, twitter profiles, tweets, embedded tweets, and screenshots of the above, including text messages, omegle, snapchat, instagram and others. This also includes any other sites that may be considered social network sites. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Serial reposters may be filtered

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

Normally I don't really pay any attention to any of the more technical awards (makeup, lighting, etc. - even cinematography - though I know they're all really important), but after seeing The Iron Lady, I walked out of the theater mostly thinking "that damn well better get an award for her makeup."

There's something really impressive about taking a well known face and transforming it in such a way that you can fully commit to the idea that this person is this character. It's all the more impressive when the actor/actress is portraying a real person, since you have to manage to capture that person's essence. Now add in the complexity of realistically aging a person, with natural wrinkles and crow's feet. Oh, and she's also physically ill, so take that into account as well.

For a character like Voldemort, you have a lot more latitude in crafting the character. The books act as a general guide, but as long as you're in the right ballpark, nobody is going to really complain. He's a character in a book, so everyone goes into the movie with their own idea of what he looks like, and everyone knows the movie won't match their idealized version, so they allow the movie to "correct" their vision of the character. From that point on, the movie version simply is that character, whereas Margaret Thatcher is a real person who lived in the public eye for ages, and everyone has an accurate idea of how she does look, or how she did look when the events of the movie took place. Pulling that off is a fairly impressive feat, and I'm glad they were recognized for it.

But we can't sensibly post that perhaps even natural makeup and aging makeup require skill, time, subtlety and talent--that would go against the notion that voldemort has the best makeup the movies have ever seen.

Your comment should be higher up. Regardless of whether monster or natural makeup is harder, it's irrelevant to the OP's comment.

I mean just look at this image from filming. There really is very little going on int he makeup department. The blue dots are reference points for all the CGI in post to remove his quite prominent nose, along w/ the other tweaks.

It really is, people are very easily freaked out by even subtle alienishness in a human face, where a monster is not going to cause this reaction. The make-up artist for voldemort is deliberately causing this effect, and I am not disparaging the makeup from Harry Potter at all when I say this--aging a human person is one of the more difficult things to do in makeup.

The *epilogue (thanks spam jr.) in HP did not do it very well imho, but they were working with quite young actors so it's a difficult thing. The Iron Lady had top notch makeup so subtle you aren't aware of how good it is.

The aging in J. Edgar is horrible, while it was really good in Iron LAdy.. But then again. They were only making Meryl Streep 15-20 years older than her real age, while Leonardo went from 37 to 77.. But comparing the CGI nightmare of Voldemort to make up-meryl streep is like comparing pears and meryl streep.

I always thought "making someone look old can't be that hard..." - then I saw Watchmen.
Made me respect movies like The Iron Lady so much more. A well deserved win - though I would have liked "Albert Nobbs" to get the Oscar as well.

It's pretty much split down the middle to be honest. I liked the epilogue. I thought that so much of the series was about Harry just wanting a family of his own, a real one, and not just the surrogate Weasleys. When Sirius died it was like his last chance of having normalcy was erased. The epilogue showed us that after all of this Voldemort nonsense, he really did just have a normal life. His adventure was over and he ends up getting the family he wanted. For Draco, we got to see that he presumably did a lot of growing up and even married someone so unimportant she never even had a name. I also liked that it let us know about Teddy, for one, since that part was heartbreaking and finding out that he didn't just fall through the cracks either when his parents were killed was nice. Basically she decided to show everything in one concise scene instead of saving a TL;DR version for interviews or Pottermore (where it would feel trivialized and rushed if she had said "and Harry lived a normal boring life. The End.") or writing out some vagueish telling of the events tacked on as a last paragraph. Her writing is good, but it's not so good that a five page "summary" of the rest of all the primary character's lives with no scene wouldn't have been a bit of a slog.

reading about the Uncanny Valley (not a place, it's a concept) is pretty cool. Basically the more inhuman something is, the more freakish or abnormal elements we can tolerate. However, the closer it gets in approximation to human-like, the more negatively people react to imperfections.

I can see what you are saying for most of Johnny Depp's roles in Tim Burton films, but he portrays realistic characters in many movies with a lot of skill. Examples include, chocolat, public enemies, Finding neverland, etc.

As much as I wanted Harry Potter to win, I mean the makeup team did a great fucking job in the Iron Lady. Later on in the movie when she is a very old Margaret Thatcher, you cannot even tell that's Meryl.

and i was thinking that her make up still seemed better in that picture, my sister is a make up artist she showed me a few things and so he who must not be named has great make up but this iron lady seems to have been quite more extensive.

edit seeing as how the parent comment shot us up to the top, let me clarify my statements. Past winners have used PLENTY of CGI and still won. Last year, the Wolfman...tons of CGI in the character creation process. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button...you actually think they shrunk Brad Pitt and aged him? CGI doing its magic there too, folks. Let me just leave this link for your convenience and you'll see PLENTY of winners that have used CGI in the makeup process.

No, they were a candidate for best make up. And it wasn't just Ralph's makeup. It was all the goblins, Death Eaters, Warwick Davis, and many other creatures created without the use of CGI. The Academy never picks children science fiction movies, unless of course they are directed by Scorsese.

Just an FYI - Benjamin Button also won best vis effects, too (Not sure how many others won both). It's worth watching the TED talk all about the new technology built around that film. At least in that instance, it was a beautiful merging of multiple disciplines that resulted in a fine look for a fine film.

Meh. Wait til you can stream them on Netflix. Saw them both--Albert Nobbs is kind of a mess, IMHO. The Iron Lady is better, but still a rather tepid biopic. Its only saving grace is that Meryl Streep's acting is quite good. (And Jim Broadbent's isn't bad, either.)

I totally disagree. I remember when the trailer came on in the theaters I was confused at how much that man looked like Glenn Close and didn't believe it was a man at all. Then it turned out to actually be Glenn Close.

I've always thought she looked like a man, ever since first seeing her in Fatal Attraction when it hit the theaters. She has a masculine chin, and even has a man's name for god's sake. She seems to me an obvious choice for an actress to play a male convincingly.

I always wondered how those guys on the likes of Jerry Springer could be with some 'woman' for several months, who's obviously a man to everyone else, only to find out the 'secret' on national tv. You might want to tread carefully and do some double-checking when picking a partner, my friend.

I'm not sure what the official criteria for judging the Best Makeup Award is, but it probably has something to do on how the makeup helps the actor more appropriately convey the character they are portraying. I'm not saying Ralph Fiennes didn't express a terrifying, intimidating, and evil presence as Voldemort but Meryl Streep utilized the aid of makeup such that her acting and her physical body became one.

Voldemort could have looked a hundred different ways but Margaret Thatcher HAD to look the way she did. There was no other way to put Streep in different makeup and have the same effect on the movie as a whole.

Furthermore, the exaggeration of Voldemort's makeup is what I think hindered the vote in his favor. Sure, he looks really cool and completely different than the actor playing him, but when you look at the level of detail that went into Thatcher's makeup that, not only changed Meryl Streep, but transformed her, it's awe inspiring.

It's like comparing a digital watch to a grandfather clock. One's more technologically advanced and flashier, but which one has more depth and character behind what is seen on the outside?

I read that Tom Felton (Who plays Draco) actually didn't know that Fiennes was going to do that. So at the very last minute, Fiennes just decided to go and hug him when Tom was just suppose to walk past, and Tom of course just went with it.

One possible reason is that Streep's makeup had to make her look like a specific person. Whenever you try to imitate something that already exists it can become a lot more challenging. Fiennes' makeup had to achieve a look but not the image of someone that already exists, which means the artist had a lot of freedom to work in.

Its hard to sum her up in only a few sentences but the main thing is that most people absolutely love her or despise her.

One of the main reasons why she got re-elected was because she was great at making enemies and defeating them and the fact she was very lucky. In her first term she was the most unpopular prime minister ever and even her own party just expected her to serve one term and be kicked out but the Labour party had become extremely left wing making them unelectable, also Argentina decided to invade the Falkland Islands which she fought against and brought patriotism to the country again

In the second term she began to close coal mines which led to the Miner's Union going on strike for a year, and was also seen as a sort of civil war with her use of the police, because she wouldnt back down (Trade unions had been a huge annoyance to the general public because of their constant strikes and their power to bring down previous governments) She had been cutting down production jobs too making a lot of people unemployed (particularly the North)

She was ultimately brought down by her own government when key people, who used to be her most loyal, resigned because of her persistence to pass a Poll Tax which the majority of the country was against.

There is a lot more about her which is why I like learning about her in my history lessons ^ Sorry its so long xD Im tired and typing this on my phone so sorry for any mistakes too :p

I appreciate you taking the time to type this. People like you are the reason why Reddit is worth reading--to learn something. You could have just not typed anything at all and kept reading on, but you took the time to help the readers out. So thanks. :)

I have to agree. The actual story of Thatcher has been lost. She was called 'The Iron Lady' because she was a hugely ignorant and stubborn woman. The film uses it as a term of endearment. The Faulklands is washed over as well. She is not a human that deserves to be celebrated nor raised up as some kind of 1980's Churchill. She fucked an entire generation for advancement of another.
EDIT: Spelling (I blame The Iron Lady for my below par spelling skills...and taking my free milk dammit!)

Ah yes, Winston Churchill. The man who used chemical weapons against the Arabs and Kurds (or uncivilised tribes as he called them) in Iraq. Not to mention phosphorous bombs, liquid fire and air strikes against civilians.

As far as I was concerned, I didn't see it as politically biased in any real way (neither objectively attacking or praising her particular policies). Instead, it showed the incredible life of a strong person.

It wasn't about any of that, I work in the industry. It wasn't about the job it's self it was the fact that Meryl and Roy Helland have been working together for over 30 years. The oscars aren't just about what is seen, it's mostly what is unseen.

A few days ago I started thinking about Ralph Fiennes, and it spawned this enigma.
If you were able to switch bodies with anybody on earth, who would it be more awesome to swap for?
Liam Neeson, who gets to be best friends with Ralph Fiennes..
Or Ralph Fiennes who gets to hang out with Liam Neeson?
I guess we will never know for sure.

I wasn't disappointed in the fact that Harry Potter didn't win in the makeup category because of Voldemort, since that wasn't just purely makeup. I'm more disappointed because of the goblins. Although I did quite enjoy the Iron Lady as well.

yea movie makeup it tough, but come on, iron fuckin lady? give me a break. im almost to the point now that the academy just cares about the big wins and then just give away the rest of the awards to snobs.

Everyone is continually referencing Voldemort, and I think it's because that's the character they largely focused on when reading the nominations. However, Harry Potter had thousands of actors, very few of which had CGI in their make up. The goblins, for instance, were entirely prosthetic. And the argument that The Iron Lady won because she portrayed a real person and therefore had to look a certain way is just a stupid argument. If that were the case, fantasy movies and biographical movies would never be in the category together.

Special effects matey, I worked on set as a specialist for 6 months doing the battles and chase scenes in the last part of the last film and he looks nothing like that on set just normal guy with some face paint and little white dots on his nose and face. It'd be kinda cheating if they won an oscar for that.

While I agree... most of Voldemort's features are done in post-production. His nose and eyes are altered after filming has taken place. However, he is still in a significant amount of makeup... more complex makeup than Meryl Streep has ever dreamed of seeing.

Most of the "makeup" for Voldemort was special effects. Also, as some other redditors have noted, it is much harder to transform how someone looks naturally, rather than slapping some gelatin on their face to change the shape.

I would be a Harry Potter fan but I found Voldemort to be a boring one note villain and to have such a shallow character over a half dozen movies is unforgivable. Maybe the Academy was just tired of the whole HP thing.